Posted
by
Zonk
on Wednesday April 19, 2006 @01:34PM
from the what-isn't-he-critical-of dept.

Gamasutra has an article on Keita Takahashi's reaction to the Revolution controller. From the article: "Takahashi commented of the Revolution, which has drawn widespread praise for its underlying concepts from other Eastern and Western designers: 'I'm not really interested in it. I don't think a controller should have that much influence on the enjoyment of games.' He continued: 'I see what [Nintendo is] trying to do, but they're putting such emphasis on the controller; 'Woah, this controller lets you do this!' and I'm thinking - are you messing with us?'"

Seriously, during an interview does anyone actually think before they speak? It's almost like any new interview must end/start with an encouragement to say anything at all offensive or shocking so that the interview will be read by a wider audience. And it's kind of disgusting.

"I'm not really interested in it. I don't think a controller should have that much influence on the enjoyment of games."

A lot of the games that are released are cookie cutter games that are slaves to the limitations of the hardware. I welcome a new kind of controller. In fact, I would be tempted to say that you're narrow minded if you're not ready to try a completely new kind of controller.

He continued: "I see what [Nintendo is] trying to do, but they're putting such emphasis on the controller; 'Woah, this controller lets you do this!' and I'm thinking - are you messing with us?"

Takahashi, who has not yet announced his current post-Katamari game project or its platform, concluded on the subject of the Revolution: "So, there's nothing I really want to do with it right now."

I sincerely hope this was taken out of context or misquoted otherwise I would mod this article as flamebait.

It's new. It obviously has new capabilities. How about you use your imagination instead of your tongue?

I agree with you completely on this. I think his main problem is that they WILL have to think outside the box again. This takes time and costs more money then just rehashing something you have already done in the past with maybe some new flashy graphics and some extra physics engine capability.

Heaven FORBID that they need to go back to the drawing board on HCI (Human Computer Interaction) because there is now a lot more capability that was just added to the HCI interface. This completely causes you to re-design full gameplay and get new test studies on how to do things. It makes the companies work again for the titles instead of chop/paste from the past. WOW! They need to take some time again to develop games... what a concept. The sky is falling because of this.

Heaven FORBID that they need to go back to the drawing board on HCI (Human Computer Interaction) because there is now a lot more capability that was just added to the HCI interface.

You make this out to be some trivial process. It isn't. One of the first things taught in any HCI program is that it's an obscenely expensive and time consuming process, even when working with existing and well-known technology and paradigms. It's also the first thing you'll encounter doing HCI work in the real world, as you'l

Perhaps, except that his use of dual analog controls is really what makes the game fun. The limited movement on the PSP proves that in a large part, the controller's abilities made the game what it was.

The thing that I don't understand about criticisms of the controller is that they seem to ignore the fact that "attachments" seem to be the order of the day. I'll balk at the Big N as much as the next guy if each attachment runs $20 and you need 4 or 5 in order to play the best games, but ignoring that, there's no reason he couldn't create a very creative game, and then create an attachment that really works for the game -- instead of having to graft it on to a standard controller.

Those of you that are old enough, think back to the days of the 2600. Some of the best most memorable games used the paddle. To date, Kaboom! has not had a decent remake. It simply cannot be done with anything other than a paddle. As much as I love Playstation controller for a gamepad, it had definitly limited game play. That is also why FPS suck on the consoles and are good on the PC. FPS need the mouse/keyboard interface.

Nintendo's also known for innovation in its hardware. With the Game & Watch Nintendo invented the D-pad, and introduced it to the home console with the NES/Famicom. Then they introduced the analog stick with the N64 (albeit in a bizarrey shaped controller). With the Gamecube they created the "digital click" which, though largely unused, was a very nice compromise between digital and analog shoulder buttons (for a good use of this feature see Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes). And now, with the DS, they've introduced all kinds of interesting possibilitied with the touchscreen (not their invention, but it's a first in consoles). There are games for the DS that simply CAN NOT be reroduced with a standard controller, such as Yoshi Touch & Go and Kirby's Canvas Curse. Then there are interesting side-notes, like the gyroscopic controls in Kirby Tilt & Tumble.

Furthermore, you complain all you want about Nintendo's stable of franchises, but they do innovate a lot within the confines of said IP. For a classic example, look at Mario 64- it's basically the template from which all other 3D platformers are drawn. Also take a look at Super Smash Bros.- character-wise it's the epitome of Nintendo's franchise-itis: it's nothing but old Nintendo franchises stuffed into a fighting game. Pokemon, But, when you look beyond that, you'll find a fighting game that's hugely different from just about any other on the market. Pokemon, hated as it is by insecure teens, is another great example of innovation. It's a variation on the standard RPG formula, but it veers sharply from mand of the standards/cliches of the genre with wildly entertaining results. Finally, the Kirby titles in the previous paragraph also serve as a good example- the little puffball's had at least 4 different control schemes.

I wouldn't say that Nintendo's reliance on fanchises is a case of laziness. It demonstrates an understanding of the power and recognizability that such old standards can have. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that it's a testament to the power of Nintendo's innovation. You don't create such strong brands by simply doing the same thing over. You do it by making something new and different that sticks with people.

I sincerely hope this was taken out of context or misquoted otherwise I would mod this article as flamebait.

Try this, replace the word "controller" with the words "flashy graphics" in his quotes and I think you'll start getting a better sense of where he's coming from. I don't think his point is that he is not willing to adapt to a new controller, instead, he's saying that Nintendo seems to be emphasizing the controller itself instead of the things that Nintendo has been traditionally strong in, such as good gameplay and design. In a way he does have a point, cool controller does not a good game make. Just like having the most powerful graphics engine in the universe won't automatically make a crap game great. That's not to say that cool new innovative games that take advantage of the controller won't appear, I'm sure they will, but there's gotta be more than that in the long run to have a healthy platform.

Yeah, from that point of view it makes sense. But I think he's not giving Nintendo enough credit -- I believe they are emphasizing the controller's ability to enable good gameplay and design. The controller is the "revolution" in the "Revolution". Otherwise it's just a new console incorporating new silicon advancements following Moore's Law, like the other two.

If you require neither flashier graphics, superior processing power, nor a new look at game input, then you really don't need a new console at all. Which you could argue you don't, if in fact you are one of those who has mastered good gameplay and design. But if you want to create actual change in gaming from the standpoint of hardware, then a game controller is a good way to do it.

Case in point: Would you say that Nintendo abandoned good gameplay and design when they developed the N64 controller? Is a D-Pad all a good game designer ever needs? Or did the addition of the analog stick open up possibilities for good designers that didn't really exist before? From Mario 64 to Super Monkey Ball to Katamari Damacy itself, there are slews of games which were able to do more with an analog stick than they would with a digital one, and have much better gameplay as a result.

I highly doubt Nintendo has de-emphasized gameplay and design. I strongly suspect that Nintendo's game designers want the new controller as much as anyone as a way to realize better gameplay. If Nintendo is mostly talking about the controller, it's because 1) it's the major change the console brings to the table and 2) they probably don't feel they really need to say that they'll put effort into making games that are well designed irrespective of the controller.

Never forget that was invented by Nintendo as well. Before the D-Pad, people used joysticks, and had no idea how much they hated them until the D-Pad.

In fact, being as how Nintendo was right about the D-Pad, right about the modern ``analog'' stick, right about the touching, why does it seem so difficult for people to believe that they might also be right about the freestyle wand?

Nintendo has demonstrated again and again that they invent excellent general purpos

Yeah, I see where's coming from. Also, as he has already demonstrated, it's entirely possible to create completely original, innovative games without changing anything in the actual hardware. While I'm totally psyched for the Revolution controller and the possibilities it will bring, I also think there's a bit of danger in going down the route of "It's a brand new game! Do all the same things you did last year WHILE WAVING A WAND IN 3D SPACE!" I don't think all games will be like this, but considering the

he's saying that Nintendo seems to be emphasizing the controller itself instead of the things that Nintendo has been traditionally strong in, such as good gameplay and design

This coming from a guy that's a one-trick pony. It's also OBVIOUS that the new controller is perfect for Katamari. I don't understand the problem. What's happening is that it looks like the Revolution is going to be the best-seller in the next round of console wars. With its unique controller, it's going to be difficult to make mul

Well, I think that's the traditional view, but we are starting to see real Gameplay innovations in controller hardware like the Eye-Toy and Guitar Hero. I've been playing the hell out of GH and, yes, the guitar seems sort of gimmicky at first, but without it the game would not be the immersive experience that it is. GH is a game that is nearly entirely driven by gameplay - there is nothing exciting about the technology or the graphics - the use of audio is innovative, but the audio itself isn't technically

A game's quality should be independant of it's controller, but they're always still limited by those controls. FPS games will never be as good on a standard console controller as they are with a mouse, in the same way that an oversize crayon will never be as good for writing as a simple pencil. A simple hack-and-slash game will generally do best with a console controller, due to simplicity.

A new controller design, with new capabilities and layout, is simply a new opportunity for improvements. If peopl

So why is there such a big market for joystick style controllers for flight simulators if a standard controller should work fine? Why do PC users swear by mouse and keyboard combo's when they could easily hook up a PS2 controller to their computer? What was the point of virtual reality of a normal TV should be good enough?If you put your self in a bubble where the entire room is the screen and give your self a new controller (maybe the movement of your body? and a gun for shooting things?) and you've got yo

### So why is there such a big market for joystick style controllers for flight simulators if a standard controller should work fine?Because those games where not designed to work with a standard controller. The point that Keita Takahashi is trying to make, is according to my interpretation, not that the new controller is bad, but simply that you can make good and creative games no matter what controller you actually have at hand and I think he his perfectly right with that one. Current games are not all t

To add to your point about exaggeraged movements with the controller....this is critical when you are playing multiplayer games. For example, the steering wheel they sold for Gran Turismo 3 on the PS2....great concept, except for the fact that the minimal movements you had to make with the joystick on the regular controller gave you a distinct advantage over someone playing with the wheel since they had to make a longer movement to achieve the same results.

"I'm not really interested in it. I don't think a controller should have that much influence on the enjoyment of games."

A lot of the games that are released are cookie cutter games that are slaves to the limitations of the hardware.

Have you ever played Katamari Damacy? There are a full thirteen buttons on the PS2 controller which Katamari Damacy ignores. The entire game is played with two joysticks. The simplicity is enough to make even the Revolution controller look complicated, and yet it entirely achieves the sense of natural interface that the Revolution controller aspires to.

Keita Takahashi, as a game designer, is not slave to the limitations of the hardware. He is master of the limitations of the hardware. Takahashi is one of those rare people who knows how to play limitations like a harp.

I would imagine this is why he is apparently not all that interested in seeing those limitations removed.

He is, of course, a bit of an aberration. Pretty much all other game designers are working at a quite different level. Among this group of developers ("everybody else"), there are quite a lot of people who are excited by the possibilities the Revolution controller offers nad feel it will allow them to express ideas that otherwise would be impossible to manifest in game form, and a lot of other people who aren't expressing interest in the Revolution but in the whole don't seem to think a whole lot about play control (and so keep churning out games which never quite feel natural or correct when thoughtlessly shoehorned underneath the modern standard maze-of-joysticks-and-buttons game controller). With both of these groups, and I think that's a significant portion of all game developers, both the developers and the resulting games would benefit from the Revolution control idiom if it became standard.

But if anyone has the right to say the revolution controller isn't necessary, it's the guy who, with Katamari Damacy, managed to make a totally revolutionary and unique control scheme out of the Dual Shock 2.

Have you ever played Katamari Damacy? There are a full thirteen buttons on the PS2 controller which Katamari Damacy ignores. The entire game is played with two joysticks. The simplicity is enough to make even the Revolution controller look complicated, and yet it entirely achieves the sense of natural interface that the Revolution controller aspires to.

Have you ever played Katamari Damacy? Katamari is a slave to that controller. You could not play that game without two identical joysticks. MAYBE you could p

There are a full thirteen buttons on the PS2 controller which Katamari Damacy ignores. The entire game is played with two joysticks.

Okay. But imagine how much MORE fun Katamari might have been if the most natural interface for rolling a ball around -- a trackball, naturally -- had been available.

It's great that Takahashi figured out a way to shoehorn an intuitive control scheme onto a decade-old input device. But not every game designer can, or should be expected to, work under those same constraints.

A trackball wouldn't work for Katamari Damacy. Moving the ball constantly would be extremely annoying and there isn't a way to distinguish turning from strafing. I think it's a stretch to go from "a trackball has a ball" to "a trackball is the best way to move a ball around in a video game."

Keita Takahashi, as a game designer, is not slave to the limitations of the hardware.

Unless I'm thinking of someone else, I'm pretty sure Keita Takahashi isn't a game designer at all. He doesn't even play games, and never even liked them much. He has said so himself before. He considers himself an artist and he wasn't really even thrilled at the idea of working on video game design, but it was a job that came along and he took it.

I tried to find the interview where he admits this, but I failed. If I'm t

Have you ever played Katamari Damacy? There are a full thirteen buttons on the PS2 controller which Katamari Damacy ignores.

Next time you play, try doing the introductory level where it teaches you the controls, because Katamari doesn't even come close to ignoring all the buttons. Of the thirteen buttons, R3 and L3 are pretty fundamental to the game, as together they switch your direction 180 degrees. R1 and L1 are both used for looking around in different ways. Start pauses, as it does in every game. Sel

I refuse to buy another console until I can control it using telekinesis.

Anything else is just more of the same.

What do you mean? You already can! Telekinesis is moving things with your mind -- just use it to push the buttons! Actually, I'm really looking forward to the Revolution as a way to practice even finer grained control of my telekinesis to maneuver the controller in 3D space, rather than crassly mashing buttons with bolts of mental force.

I completely understand where Takahashi is coming from. Both the 360 and PS3 offer enough computational horsepower that significant improvements in core gameplay elements, such as graphics, physics, AI, audio, level size, etc., are possible (once developers figure out the new hardware and the PS3 is actually on shelves). And all Nintendo has to offer is comparatively weak hardware and a goofy controller? Are you kidding me?

I'd also like to point out that virtually every innovative console game (and borin

Personally, I'd hate to be a developer who can't make the game I want because of a non-standard controller and sub-par hardware.

I agree with the assesment that this new controller might not be the end all and be all...it seems like it might get very tiring after a while.

But at the risk of sounding like that patent office guy who said we figure pretty much that can be invented has been, it seems like the only thing this "sub-par hardware" would cut back on is eye-candy. I can't think of too many things that

I'd also like to point out that virtually every innovative console game (and boring imitator) since the NES 20 years ago has used basically the same controller design.

And I'd like to point out that every controller design from Nintendo since the NES(well before the GC) has had an impact on that same controller we've been using. Cross D-pad, shoulder buttons, analog sticks, canned force feedback are all console precendents set by Nintendo.

How so? Seriosly it is an INTERFACE. So now instead of pressing A to jump I am going to flip the controller? Instead of pressing A for left or B for Right I am just going to titlt it to the side? All the input gets translated to a function in the game.

The only thing this will probably improve is being sore after a long game of Mario Party. The controller will not spawn any new types of games but make certain games seem alot more fluid.

See... thats the problem. Everyone is misquoting this guy and by proxy my response. He isnt saying, nor am I, that the controller should not influence the game. Re-read exactly what he said "have that much influence"

He isnt saying the games shouldnt be influenced or take advantage of the controller, he is saying the controller shouldnt be the focus of the game. That I agree with greatly. I think if Nintendo keeps putting so much focus on the controller, game devs are going to come at it the wrong w

Controllers have always impacted the way people play games - the gamepad revolutionized games (all of those games we had on the original NES and since then aren't practical to play on paddles), the top triggers added to that (allowing for greater control in games), the analog stick greatly added (and became pretty much required for 3d games)... If you want to take another example - take the DDR games... would they be possible without their special controller?

the gamepad revolutionized games (all of those games we had on the original NES and since then aren't practical to play on paddles)

I'm going to disagree. Pretty much all NES games play quite similarly with a joystick, which was the standard controller before the gamepad. Where the gamepad outperforms a joystick is in cost, convenience (size), and the ability to put a lot of controllers/buttons in your hand. Until the game makers started putting a large (and in my opinion, excessive) number of controllers

What this guy should be doing is working out how to use this control system in a future game to best effect.

Not all games can benefit from it I'm sure. The question should be whether enough games will to make it worthwhile for Nintendo to make it a base component of the system, unlike the examples above. Gameplay examples have been thought of b

i find it funny that he claims that "nintendo is making all about the controller" because what nintendo is trying to do is rather make the human/machine interface disappear. as it stands, current controllers are totally abstracted: "press A to do this; press B to do that". the player has to take the time to learn what really has no context, thus making it *all about the controller*. now with good software, you just roll the Revo controller to move front, back left and right, swing your sword or toss you fishing lure; the software is what has to understand the context of the humans natural movements. this makes the game more about the human and less about the controller.

The question is the degree of the abstraction. For example, using a mouse to move a picture around a computer screen is an abstraction, but it's a fairly natural one - move hand to right, arrow moves to right. If I try the same thing using a directional pad then I am going to have to compensate for the length of time a button is pressed and perhaps how hard it's pressed (assuming an analog button). These factors increase the amount of work I need to do in order to move the arrow on the screen to a precis

To me it sounds like a more meaningful abstraction. Some interface metaphors are more naturally meaningful to most humans than other metaphors. Some fail because of novelty, some for organic reasons. The steering wheel, for instance, is more natural than a joystick for driving because the steering wheel allows for a smoother gradient of control, not just because it's been a metaphor people have been getting used to for 100 years. Whether or not the new metaphors presented by the Revolution will be as mea

### this makes the game more about the human and less about the controller.In the end that might be true, but as it stands right now its all about the controller and only about the controller, we know exactly *nothing* about the games we will play on Revolution (except a few screenshots of Red Steel and N64, SNES, NES, etc. of course) and that is most likly what he is complaining about.

With the N64 we had Mario64, so we raved about Mario64 and not the new analog-stick, with the Rev we rave about the control

"right now its all about the controller and only about the controller, we know exactly *nothing* about the games we will play on Revolution (except a few screenshots of Red Steel and N64, SNES, NES, etc. of course) and that is most likly what he is complaining about."

So where was he when Sony and MS were all about the graphics of their new consoles?

"With the N64 we had Mario64, so we raved about Mario64 and not the new analog-stick, with the Rev we rave about the controller, not the games"

The thing that worries me about this is that there was a similar controller available for the original NES. You held it out and midair and titled it forward for "up". Backward for "down", left/left/, and right/right.It worked just as it was intended to, and it was absolutely the most annoying device I ever put my hands on.

What's worse is that they made this the only/primary controller for the Revolution. Throwing the gyro controller in the box as an option like the light gun was would have been a really,

The revolution will be able to support current gamecube controllers as well, so I'm wondering if he is dismissing the entire revolution platform, or just the controller? I think we will still see lots of interesting things come out of the revolution that don't particularly use its controller or use a gamecube one instead.

Remember that he also said that he wasn't going to do a sequel to Katamari Damashi and he eventually made two. He is free to change his opinion later if he wants. Who knows, the next game he makes could actually be a killer app for the Revolution. Nothing is set in stone at this point.On another note, I am enthused about the Revolution's controller but even I still have a nagging feeling that this step won't stop cookie-cutter games that all play alike, it will just create new styles of cookie-cutter gam

I'll take some new types of cookie cutter games over more of what we've already got now. Yeah, so eventually the limits of potential for the new controller will probably be reached...does that mean it's a waste of time to move to it? Should we just give up an stay with the current controllers forever, even though we're already pretty close to the limits of those?I don't know how much hands on experience this guy has had with the new controller. The article wasn't terribly informative. Hopefully his comments

As a video game (esp. Nintendo) zealot turned dissident, I think Takahashi may be on to something. There's been an awful lot of stabs (again, esp. by Nintendo) to "broaden the audience", getting more casual gamers playing. And hey, if Nintendo thinks this controller helps, that's their decision to make.But, speaking as an overworked graduate student in CS who once floated through K-12, I can say I don't have time for these "revolutions" in the game industry. Katamari Damacy is the only console game I've pla

I'm with you. I was all set to bury my anti-MS feelings and get some next gen goodness with the XBox 360, but when I saw the initial lineup: FPS, sports, sports, FPS, FPS, FPS, sports, sports, sports... I passed. BTW, I consider car racing games as "sports" even if it's some silly "Oooo! Illegal street racing doodz!" title.

PS3 lineup isn't starting to look all that much better.:( Although that shooter from Insomniac may have potential.

I'm not interested in using my controller as a light gun (complete with me having to stand and spin around to turn), or as a sword and shield for Zelda, or whatever other recent rumor/fanboy postulating has come up with. I want to sit down for take a break for twenty minutes.

Maybe I'm just not seeing something here, but I don't see how your first sentence has anything to do with the second. What makes you think Nintendo and other game companies can't/won't make games that have you wave the new control

Ok I think I understand where you're coming from now. I think what it all boils down to is no one really knows what games will be like with the new controller. I think the promo video was made to spur people's imaginations as to what's possible with the new controller. But I don't think that means the games will necessarily have you standing up swinging your arm around wildly like in the video. I remember when the promos came out, some site (don't remember the site or link) had some "hands on impression

Pardon me, but I think your take is 180 degrees off.Your enjoyment of Katamari has EVERYTHING to do with the controller; in particular the control scheme. The reason why you, as a very busy individual, could sit down and enjoy it was because the interface was simple and intuitive. The number of games and the breadth of design for them allowed by controllers like the Dual Shock is extremely limited though, which is why there aren't a ton of games out there like Katamari.

Nintendo's controller doesn't prevent lazy-player games from being made. Not only can it be used in some games without waving your hand around, but you can always connect a Gamecube controller to the system and play it like any other console.

Nintendo is broadening the types of games that will be played on Revolution, not restricting them.

Considering Nintendo has been around since 1889, I think after almost 120 years they know how to run a successful business, and how and who they need to market to to continue to be a successful business.

2) As an adult, you are pressed for time and prefer casual games, and Nintendo is overlooking you.

I think that 1 is more correct than 2, though I don't think it's totally correct. The whole point of the Revolution (and its more-intuitive controller) is to get casual gamers off of Yahoo! games and onto a console. Nintendo kn

Keita Takahashi is the creator of one of my favorite games ever, and I'm inclined to listen to what he has to say on game design issues. But I couldn't disagree more with this statement, seeing as how it implies that he thinks good game design is completely independent of the platform it is made for.

Keita can go and make Katamari Damacy for the original PS1 then. Oh, what's that? Can't handle the huge number of polygons in the game? Lack of dual-analog CONTROLLER makes it not nearly as fun? Yeah, that's what I thought:)

The Revolution's controller, at the very least, will allow for new gameplay elements. Whether or not this will lead to new and exciting game design is up for speculation, but it won't hurt and it's certainly not some kind of smoke screen.

I agree with you mostly, but I can see how a designer like Takahashi would have an opinion like this. He is more interested in revolutionizing the existing system than bringing in a new standard that every game will have to abide by. He's obviously a veteran to games but he's new to the industry. In my opinion the Revolution is the Katamari of consoles - different and simple!

The dual analog sticks weren't added until later. And the individual objects in Katamari have a low poly count, but taken in aggregate it's a decent number of polys. My point was that Keita made a game that relied on the controller and specs of the system it was made for, it wouldn't have worked as well on previous generation hardware. See the other comments in this thread, someone replies to me with a description of the PSP version that pretty much illustrates my point exa

I'm not really interested in it. I don't think a controller should have that much influence on the enjoyment of games.

The controller has everything to do with the enjoyment of games, because that's how you interact with them. If this statement was really true, we'd all be using controllers like the Colecocision [videogamecritic.net] and other such monstrocities from the early 1980s. Look, it has nine buttons AND A KNOB! What more could you possibly ask for? And it's a sturdy, small design, so it can easily be stored.

Can you make enjoyable games with the current controllers? Hell yeah. But the Revolution contoller is about immersion as much as it is about enjoyment. Instead of sending an instruction to your character to swing the sword (passive second person) you actually move your arm to swing the sword (active first person), which will make people much more interested if they actually play the game instead of watch it.

Let's say you like playing sports. Which would you rather do? Be the coach who sits in the box and tells the batter when to swing, or be the batter and decide when you want to swing?

Games will be made on the PS3, 360, and Revolution that are enjoyable. But games will only be made for the Revolution that are immersable, which just compounds the enjoyment.

Games will be made on the PS3, 360, and Revolution that are enjoyable. But games will only be made for the Revolution that are immersable, which just compounds the enjoyment.

Unless the game itself features a character reaching its arm out, I don't think the Rev controller will really be that much more immersive than a gamepad. If the controller moves a spaceship or Mario's body or even a mouse cursor, players will still have that extra degree of separation as they translate their physical moves to the

But the Revolution contoller is about immersion as much as it is about enjoyment. Instead of sending an instruction to your character to swing the sword (passive second person) you actually move your arm to swing the sword (active first person), which will make people much more interested if they actually play the game instead of watch it.

Which is great, but I suspect that a few years down the line you will a Lancet study on a whole slew of Revolution related injuries - RSI, bruises and fractures etc. - caused by a system that requires someone to wave a controller around, possibly quite forcefully.

I don't think he's saying that the Rev's controller is inherently crappy...I think he's saying that a good game should stand on its own merits, regardless of what you're using to control it. Granted, controls that are difficult to use can ruin an otherwise good product...but any developer worth his salt should be able to program around a controller, not for a controller.

I agree. I think the problem is that people are pigeonholing the Revolution controller just like they did the DS's dual screens. Hell, even I sneered at the DS when it was being shown. I thought it screamed "GIMICK!" and then I bought one a few months ago... the touch screen does three things: It enables games that would be impossible or extremely difficult to use without it for direct input, it provides an auxiliary screen for additional control buttons, and it provides a second status screen instead of an

Just because the guy developed one popular game doesn't suddenly make him an expert. On the other hand, I tend to agree with the guy. I'm positive that the Revolution's controller is going to be absolutely phenomenal, but only with a handful of games. Excessive amounts of emphasis have been placed on this controller when the reality is that most games just wont quite work with the controller. It's control mechanism is simply too specialized to fit most games. Maybe its partly the media's fault for pushing this thing so much, but then again, Nintendo hasn't really shown us anything other than that controller.

I personally cant stand the existing controllers covered in buttons and poorly designed games where developers felt the need to use every single button on them. So, I'm not saying Nintendo shouldn't use this thing as the centerpiece for the Revolution. Games like Guitar Hero have shown that Nintendo doesn't really corner the market on unique controllers. So I don't think it's going to quite spur the sort of innovation some people are expecting. The innovations that come will be due to compelling game design, not because some unusual controller has inspired it.

While Takahashi is free to have any opinion he wants, its slightly suspicious that a man who has been quoted as saying that, the drive behind the Katamari games was to "create a quirky and fun game", eschews Nintendo for trying the same thing.

I've said this before, but dual-analog SUCKS. It is a horrid way to control a FPS and it has kept me from buying one of the current incarnations of consoles. If I wanted to play FPS I would just play them on the PC where it makes sense. They need a new control mechanism if they want to do FPS games on a console effectively. If you think about it, the controller design with the seperate analog stick might just be what is needed, a separation of concerns. Yes it will be able to detect position and everyt

The controller is so weird that combined with the lower specs in the machine, games makers are going to have a hell of a job to port their games over to the platform. Nintendo may find themselves one of only a handful of makers who even bother.

The point is that the PS3 & XBox 360 are fairly comparable. Similar controllers, same screen resolutions, ability to dump out large numbers of polygons. Porting a game from a PS3 to an XBox 360 or vice versa will be a relatively straightforward affair. You can programme to the lowest common denominator (of the two) and your game would still look good on the other. There may be differences and things unique to each system that you want to exploit but on the whole, they're similar enough that there is no

Keita Takahashi has never developed anything outside of PS2 and PSP titles so why is this a surprise? Whats next, an interview where Bungie declares it lack of desire to port halo to the ps3?

As for the controller, I believe Nintendo's goal isnt to focus on the controller but to make the controller something you dont have to think about. I really think they have the right idea and if its done well, it will revolutionize the game industry. Imagine an interface that has virtually no learning curve. People that have never gamed before will be attracted to it after learning its as easy as using a remote control. As a bonus, educators and parents groups will praise it because it not only encourages but requires physical activity. I really think the hardcore gaming community is really underestimating what Nintendo is bringing to the table.

There already is one. It's called the Gamecube controller, and you'll be able to use it with the Revolution.

Unless Nintendo's lot check guidelines require that only GameCube compatible games may use the GameCube controller. This is not without precedent: the GBA hardware accepts a GBC 2-player link cable just fine between two GBAs, but licensees are urged to make their games compatible only with the GBA-GBA multiplayer cable, which is actually slower (half duplex, slower baud rate) than the GBC cable.

Well, unless they screw something up between E3 05 and release date, it will work just fine.

Many different gaming magazine writers got to sit down and actually use the controller with demo games. Pretty much every one commented on how flawlessly it worked.

Imagine if the NES had been released with the light gun as the only controller?

That would have been a problem because the light gun had only one function- read in light patterns from the screen. It did nothing else, so programmers would have been able to use that one function in their games.

This is far from a light gun.

(Also, Nintendo has already stated that it is making a "shell" for the controller so it will be more like a conventional one, for the developers and gamers who pussy out.)

Imagine if the NES had been released with the light gun as the only controller? I seriously doupt this will be the only controller the system ships with. If it is, yea I agree, it would be a bad move. Luckily we have less then a month to E3 where suppositivly all specs and "surprises" will be announced.. So we shall wait.

And if thats not good enough I understand that you can still hook an old gamecube controller to it.

The Power Glove and other non-standard controllers were not designed to be the primary controllers for their respective consoles. In other words, you weren't going to buy an NES with just a Power Glove inside, nor just a light gun, nor just a DDR pad, and on and on. One can reasonably assume that the new controller will work just fine out of the box because doing otherwise would just plain kill the console.

As for Takahashi's whine, he seems to be talking out of the proverbial hindquarters. Of course c

Everyone is commenting on it like they assume it's actually going to even work right in the first place. What happens if this thing comes out and it has massive lag, or a problem with the box "losing" the controller, or any number of other technical glitches (Power Glove anyone?).

So you've missed where many industry people have already had hands-on experience with the thing, and are already a fair way through developing games that use it? Apparently you're assuming Nintendo learned nothing from the Power Gl

What happens if this thing comes out and it has massive lag, or a problem with the box "losing" the controller, or any number of other technical glitches (Power Glove anyone?).

Wow, what kind of morons do you think are running Nintendo? This company has been around for over a century, and is the only company currently managing to make an actual profit on video game consoles. You actually believe that they would risk the entire existence of their company by putting out a new console (in a very competitive marketplace) with a main controller that faulty? I mean, if they would, they don't deserve to keep existing anyhow, because that would be such a colossally stupid move. They're not Sony or Microsoft, they don't have a bazillion other products that can keep them afloat if their console bombs. They've got consoles and handhelds, and that's their business.

Yes, it could still be a flop just because of the whims of consumers. But I seriously, seriously doubt it will be because of actual flaws in the technical aspects. They'd push back the date or cancel the controller entirely rather than risk that. The fact that they've gotten this far strongly suggests that it won't be a problem.

Glorified light gun?
Does 5 very natural axises of control mean anything to you? A light gun, at best, has 2 axises of control. If you've got the dexterity to manipulate two analog sticks independently of one another, then you get a maximum of 4 with traditional controllers. Hardcore gamers may have that kind of dexterity, but have you ever seen an average person try to pick up Katamari or any number of FPS games for any of the current gen systems? It's almost painful to watch.
And even if you DO have tha

Immersion beyond simple 2D controls is only natural
when all games are now being created in 3D.

The problem arises when console manufacturers start
(or rather, when they started, since they've gone
too far already) putting far more buttons than a typical
human can remember how to use. Add in the idea of
mode-specific buttons ("X fires in the minigames, jumps
in the main screen, pans left on the map...") or even
chording, and you quickly have even experienced gamers
who limit their interaction to the mere